Is It Legal for A Company to Mandate Flu Shots?

[bowz]

So our corporate company just sent out and Email mandating that we all take flu shots or be terminated unless we have a legitimate medical reason or religious reason.  We used to be able to decline for whatever reason we felt necessary, but now you face termination if you don't.

Law type folks, what is the deal with this, is it legal, how can they do that?

Any help would rock, thanks.

[tfree32]

So our corporate company just sent out and Email mandating that we all take flu shots or be terminated unless we have a legitimate medical reason or religious reason.  We used to be able to decline for whatever reason we felt necessary, but now you face termination if you don't.

Law type folks, what is the deal with this, is it legal, how can they do that?

Any help would rock, thanks.

I'm not sure Bowz. Do you work in the health care field or the military? If so, maybe your employer feels there's more of a need for you to be protected from any virus or from spreading it to patients or co-workers who will work with patients. If not, then it's unclear to me why they would try to force you to take it other than just based on a general concern about having a healthy workforce.

In any event, it's unclear whether they can force you to take it. It sounds like if you refuse, there's a strong possibility you lose your job and you wind up in court to see what a judge has to say about it. Do you feel strongly enough about it to risk your job and want to deal with that hassle and expense?

But the short answer is that I don't know. Maybe Phil or another attorney who posts here does more employent law related stuff and can give you a better answer.

[Omaha_Phil]

So our corporate company just sent out and Email mandating that we all take flu shots or be terminated unless we have a legitimate medical reason or religious reason.  We used to be able to decline for whatever reason we felt necessary, but now you face termination if you don't.

Law type folks, what is the deal with this, is it legal, how can they do that?

Any help would rock, thanks.

I'm not sure Bowz. Do you work in the health care field or the military? If so, maybe your employer feels there's more of a need for you to be protected from any virus or from spreading it to patients or co-workers who will work with patients. If not, then it's unclear to me why they would try to force you to take it other than just based on a general concern about having a healthy workforce.

In any event, it's unclear whether they can force you to take it. It sounds like if you refuse, there's a strong possibility you lose your job and you wind up in court to see what a judge has to say about it. Do you feel strongly enough about it to risk your job and want to deal with that hassle and expense?

But the short answer is that I don't know. Maybe Phil or another attorney who posts here does more employent law related stuff and can give you a better answer.

I don't know for sure either.  You should have an HR department you can call.  Otherwise, there is usually an ombudsperson of sorts for your state you can call and ask.

[Husker94]

So our corporate company just sent out and Email mandating that we all take flu shots or be terminated unless we have a legitimate medical reason or religious reason.  We used to be able to decline for whatever reason we felt necessary, but now you face termination if you don't.

Law type folks, what is the deal with this, is it legal, how can they do that?

Any help would rock, thanks.

I'm going to venture a guess and say that yes the company you work for can demand you receive a flu shot.  (I don't know for certain though.) 

I did just a bit of research regarding Idaho statutes and found this: (I fully admit that it is not directly on point to the question posed.)

39-4801.Immunization required. Except as provided in section 39-4802, Idaho Code, any child in Idaho of school age may attend grades preschool and kindergarten through twelve of any public, private or parochial school operating in this state if otherwise eligible, provided that upon admission, the parent or guardian shall provide a statement to the school authorities regarding the child’s immunity to certain childhood diseases.

http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title39/T39CH48SECT39-4801.htm

From a logical point of view it would seem to me that if the state can mandate immunizations for children to attend school, the basis being the greater good or concern for public health, then it logically follows that a company can do the same in re: employees *.

I would especially think the company you work for could mandate such a vaccination particularly if you are in a right-to-work state.

Although as always laws in other states can vary and as the two previous responses have stated you'd be well served contacting an attorney who specializes in employment law or simply weigh the pros and cons of seeking employment elsewhere.



* I realize that logic and the law are sometimes diameterically opposed, and further I understand that just because a school can require vaccinations / immunizations that it doesn't mean a business can.

[Husker94]

As Lee Corso says, "Not so fast my friend!"

After I posted the above I found this:

39-9003.  STATEMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY. (2)  It is hereby declared that the public policy of the state of Idaho, consistent with our constitutionally recognized and inalienable rights of liberty, is that every person within the state of Idaho is and shall be free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty by the federal government of the United States of America.

http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title39/T39CH90SECT39-9003.htm

Now this particular section speaks specifically to the securing of health care services, and being free of penalty or threat from the federal government.

I think that it could be reasonably argued that company forcing a vaccination, of any kind, would violate this particular statute here in Idaho--regardless if it is the government or a private employer.

(But I do also recognize that the statute only mentions the federal government.)

Edit:  [And I realize you do not live in Idaho but maybe the state you do live in has a similar type of statute.]

Edit x 2: I could not find an enactment date but I assume this particular section being passed was in response to the "Obamacare" legislation.  And that is another discussion entirely.

[HuskerFan2002]

Do you really want to go through the courts for a simple flu shot?

[Husker94]

Do you really want to go through the courts for a simple flu shot?

It's not as simple as that.  The question is: Can a company legally tell its employees that they have to get or flu shot or lose their job?

And if a company can force an employee to get a flu shot then what is to stop them from telling an employee that they have to vote democratic, mow their lawn every Saturday at 9 am, support the Untied Way, donate money to the "Save Festivus" fund?  The examples I've used are silly sure but the point remains: If a company can force an employee to get a flu shot then where is the line drawn?     

From a medical point of view getting a flu shot is not a guarantee that you won't contract the flu due to the numerous strains that exist, what strains you've previously had, etc.

[Big Sky Husker]

Do you really want to go through the courts for a simple flu shot?

Unless you have a job in the medical field, military, may be the school system... I don't see where it's any of my employer's business if I take a flu shot or not.

[Omaha_Phil]

Do you really want to go through the courts for a simple flu shot?

Unless you have a job in the medical field, military, may be the school system... I don't see where it's any of my employer's business if I take a flu shot or not.

I'm guessing somewhat, but if they mandate it, usually their insurance payments are lowered.  Just think, if Obamacare if upheld, the government can force you to get this shot too, all in the name of commerce.

[FreightTrain]

I can see their position as many now refrain from the mandatory programs for inoculations I went through in the fifties and sixties.  The thing is there is that small percentage that things that go wrong with the shots.  Can the integrity of the inoculations be kept at a high standard as the FDA is operating short handed with inspectors.  They have rushed drugs to the production line with the fast tracking of drugs.  We see many drugs suspect as those years of trials have been reduced.  Having that percentage of things that go wrong or that could go wrong leaves an employer the target of suits I would think.  If they do mandate the shots they leave themselves exposed when things go wrong.  Do employers trust the system that much?

[Husker94]

I'm guessing somewhat, but if they mandate it, usually their insurance payments are lowered.  Just think, if Obamacare if upheld, the government can force you to get this shot too, all in the name of commerce.

Not here in Idaho (See the above referenced and linked statute).

[Omaha_Phil]

I'm guessing somewhat, but if they mandate it, usually their insurance payments are lowered.  Just think, if Obamacare if upheld, the government can force you to get this shot too, all in the name of commerce.

Not here in Idaho (See the above referenced and linked statute).

As federal law overrules state law on such areas, if Obama puts it into place and Congress votes it, that would be the law even in Idaho.

[Game214]

Required or not, I always take a few shots before I go to work.

Wait...what?

[Husker94]

I'm guessing somewhat, but if they mandate it, usually their insurance payments are lowered.  Just think, if Obamacare if upheld, the government can force you to get this shot too, all in the name of commerce.

Not here in Idaho (See the above referenced and linked statute).

As federal law overrules state law on such areas, if Obama puts it into place and Congress votes it, that would be the law even in Idaho.

I need clarification on three points...It is my understanding that:

1) federal law applies to a state when there is nothing specific in a state's statutes addressing an issue,

2) the law applies a "whichever is stronger" rule and

3) the US Constitution states that [paraphrasing] any law [or right] not emunerated in the Constitution is left to the discretion of the various states.

And as to point number three, since there's nothing in our Constitution about requiring us to buy health care I can't possibly see how obamacare, even if it does become law, can trump an existing state law.

[Omaha_Phil]

I'm guessing somewhat, but if they mandate it, usually their insurance payments are lowered.  Just think, if Obamacare if upheld, the government can force you to get this shot too, all in the name of commerce.

Not here in Idaho (See the above referenced and linked statute).

As federal law overrules state law on such areas, if Obama puts it into place and Congress votes it, that would be the law even in Idaho.

I need clarification on three points...It is my understanding that:

1) federal law applies to a state when there is nothing specific in a state's statutes addressing an issue,

2) the law applies a "whichever is stronger" rule and

3) the US Constitution states that [paraphrasing] any law [or right] not emunerated in the Constitution is left to the discretion of the various states.

And as to point number three, since there's nothing in our Constitution about requiring us to buy health care I can't possibly see how obamacare, even if it does become law, can trump an existing state law.

You're basically correct on #2 and #3, but off on #1.  Also, the Constitution contains what is called the Supremacy Clause. 

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and Federal Statutes as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state. (Note that the word "shall" is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.) However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase "in pursuance thereof" in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself.

So as to #3, you're correct in that the federal government (Obamacare in this instance) would have to be done pursuant to the federal government's constitutional powers.  That's the fight going on right now.  Obama et. al. are fighting saying that the non-buying of health insurance by healthy people affects interstate commerce.  Which, of course IMO, is absolutely insane.  This could literally open the door to nearly anything the government can force you to buy.  Still haven't seen a convincing argument that shows me otherwise (re forced buying of anything). 

If states could opt out of Obamacare, it would kill the bill.  Most Americans don't want it and most states would opt out.  If the pool of healthy people is too small, the whole thing collapases. 

Hope I explained it clearly.